Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
- Main Forums
- What's Hot
- TRP.RED
- Tribe Forums
- TheRedPill
- Tribe Management
- Create New Tribe
- Manage My Tribes
- Find New Tribes
- Recent News
-
-
mattyanon TRP Endorsed 11mo ago
"Men don't seem to be getting told that if they're not having any luck chasing young girls, they should focus on dating women their own age"
Men get told this ALL THE TIME. They even get told this if they ARE having luck with young girls.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
Especially the latter - usually by salty old crones with nothing of value left to offer but still think they deserve a slave beast to provide them an unearned retirement.
woodsmoke Respectful reprobate 11mo ago
Not sure this really fits rule 5. @Typo-MAGAshiv, @moorekom, @kevin32, @Land_of_the_losers, @lurkerhasarisen; what say you?
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
Rule 5: "complaining that she "can't find a decent guy" -
To paraphrase Ben Shapiro: I think this is implied by the title: "I just don't think it's fair".
She made about a half dozen followup comments which are equally hilarious, but I think this gem stands on its own.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 11mo ago
I think the line where she complains about the men she wants being “Peter Pans” sticks her firmly into Rule 5 territory.
The men she wants (men her age with options) are playing the field and refusing to “grow up” on her timeline now that she’s at the Age of Epiphany.
I give this find two thumbs up.
Pic889 11mo ago
If a man has a better and more exciting life by being a "Peter Pan", why shouldn't he do that? I thought it's a free country.
We should openly ask this question more often. Women like to be sexually liberal when it suits them but implicitly demand conservativeness and monogamy from men when it suits them.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
Yeah the millisecond a woman complains about "Peter Pans" she may as well have outright confessed that she's opening her legs for men way too far above her on the MMV ladder to ever commit to her.
woodsmoke Respectful reprobate 11mo ago
Works for me.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 11mo ago
She isn't clearly seeking commitment. She's only discussing initial attraction and dating, not commitment.
It fits the flair "single woman tears", but that's weekend flair.
In spite of this, I'm in favor of leaving it up. It's been slow lately, and the comments are good.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 11mo ago
CC @woodsmoke
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 11mo ago
Let me try to convince you.
She’s 33 (Epiphany Phase), and is complaining about men not wanting to take dating seriously when she thinks they should. She even used three euphemisms: immature, Peter Pan, and never-grow-up.
If that doesn’t signal “wants them to commit” then I’m not sure what does. Women who just want to have fun don’t complain about men who just want to have fun.
This is all about men in their 30s and 40s who aren’t looking to wife up women their own age. Those men may shag their age-peers if there are no better options, but the women they might pair off with are younger versions of her.
This has to be understood in context, too. This isn’t an original post: she’s expanding on the complaint of an even older woman complaining that men her age ignore her for anything besides sex.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 11mo ago
You and I and most dudes here all know that from experience and reading between the lines.
However, that doesn't meet the muster for rule 5. The Carol needs to be explicit in her desire for commitment.
Hell, there's the possibility that she just wants male attention and not necessarily commitment, going only by her words.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 11mo ago
Have we switched roles? Usually I’m the one saying we shouldn’t be trying to read between the lines and you’re the one saying the implications are sufficient to draw conclusions.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 11mo ago
lol I was wondering the same thing
I wish i still had access to the reddit modmail so I could dig up the discussions Kevin had about his intent behind some of the rules and various situations in posts
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
Her apex fallacy is on display. Men are told shit like that all the time, just that the men getting told that are ones she never notices because she doesn't see them as human beings.
So only the men that she pays attention to aren't getting told that, and she fails to grasp that is because they are the ones that are doing well enough to not have to settle for her as an option even though she wants them to.
Problematic_Browser Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
Dear women,
Men don't owe you shit.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
I had to read this twice to really get a handle on this word salad. I mean, we all know what is going on here, but I wanted to understand if SHE knew what she was actually complaining about.
I really don't think she does. The opening line is just perfect..."I hate the idea that women are not being realistic if............" That's a wonderful concept right on its own. Because what she goes on to say is if ....they are being realistic.
So, she hates the idea that women are not being realistic, if....they are not being realistic.
That is what she hates. Let that sink in.
If I were her therapist, I would tell her "Sweetie, no matter how much you hate reality now, I promise you, you will like it even less in 10 years time. I personally guarantee it."
And that, in a nutshell, is what she hates. The truth. Reality. The world as it is.
She also says "I'm 33 and I'm not interested in anyone over 40". I think what she will find when she is 43 and still single is that she may well wish that she had settled for some guy 12 years older than her back when she was 33. Because at 43, she will find that there are only a few guys that are 18 years older than her that will settle for her. And at 45, she will find that there is no man at any age that will settle for her. Because the guys over 63 are not looking for drama. They're happy with their hobbies, friends and grandkids.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
There's a lot to digest, isn't there? She isn't ATTRACTED to old, (presumably average), non-rich guys. It's so UNFAIR! I'm reminded of the film Shallow Hal which played on the stereotype that frumpy men wanted only hot women and how they suffered. Nobody pitied Shallow Hal and he only found happiness when he was hypnotized into seeing exceptionally obese and unattractive people as beautiful. Maybe that would work for her: hypnotize her into falling in love with short guys who have lousy, but steady jobs, and no social status.
Actually, that does happen, sort of. There are women out there who do fall in love with "average" or even slightly below average guys and her women friends shame her as a "pick me": "Look, I have a happy family, we're doing well, and we have an old car. I cook and clean for him because it makes him happy!" Her women friends seethe and try to sabotage her.
Later on in other comments, she remarks she will find 40 something men attractive when she's that age and so on. She thinks that men should have the same attractiveness standards as she holds for men, well, except she should enjoy superstar status for her whole life as if she was 22. It doesn't work that way. Life is so unfair.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
"I'm still young and want to enjoy what's left of my youth with someone my own age"
If you want to be married to someone your own age and grow old together, then the only option is to get married at about 23. Which means you have to forgo 10 years of 'finding yourself as a person' (on the CC).
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
Totally agree, except I'm starting to think 16-18 is a better age. Just think about it from a natural perspective. Women can have kids starting at like 14 no problem. Why delay the best part of her youth and fertility?
I got married at 20 but looking back, two years earlier wouldn't have hurt anything, her Boomer dad wanted her to finish college first. Now it's coming up on my turn to marry off a daughter :)
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
You're not wrong. Fertility for women peaks at about 16 and is in a more or less straight line decline from there on. There are two aspects to fertility - the ability to conceive, that's one part. But the part that society and science is almost totally silent on is the correlation of birth defect to mother's age at birth. The older the woman is at birth, the higher the incidence of serious birth defects, such as downs syndrome.
The reason why science is almost silent on this risk? Because it the implications conflict with the values of the femocracy.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
Next you're going to say that people that want to live off of investment dividends need to actually have made investments.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
I know right! And the best time to make that investment was 20 years ago.
houseoftolstoy Unchivalrous Christian 11mo ago
But many women find this "unfair" as well, as they often assume that "because men are all sleeping around" that they should be able to do that too. But the problem is that only one subsection of men is actually doing that (those that are willing and capable of doing so), and those men just so happen to be the ones that numerous women want. Meanwhile, women who actually do buckle down and look for a man early can find one that is willing to commit to her (and even be close to her own age). The thing is, many women take such men for granted and assume that they will be still waiting for them in their 30s. But often they find out such men are unavailable since they either found a woman who was also ready or they simply gave up on the idea.
On another note, women who refuse to forego those 10 years show that their priorities were never about finding a commitment minded man. Rather, they assume that they can have it both ways. But again, they find out men are not fond of this sort of arrangement.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
And that oddly enough, men are human beings with human rights and can decide not to wife up a proven liability. The Kweens are of course unamused by this.
houseoftolstoy Unchivalrous Christian 11mo ago
Welcome to the reality of the sexual marketplace, where "fairness" is not matters when it comes to determining who will be willing to commit to you, but rather what you have to offer someone else is what matters.
It is no surprise that this woman is 33 and is upset about being unable to find a man close to her age. Every woman who reaches their 30s and is still single makes a big deal about finding a man close to their own age. Why is this? It is because such women have squandered the most critical decade of their lives to find the best man possible and now they are hoping that they can just skirt the consequences of not doing everything in their power to get a quality man in their 20s. The reasons for why they have squandered this time vary from "focusing on her career/education," opting for the "exciting" type of man who demonstrated no desire to commit to her instead of the more commitment focused men, or was too picky for her own good in all the wrong ways (i.e. rejecting men or ending relationships for frivolous reasons rather than anything important).
However these women get to this point, they usually have no good answers for why they have wasted at least a decade's worth of time while still being at square 1 of "finding a man" in their journey to marriage/long term commitment. So, when women like this complain about men their own age not being interested in them, they had their chance of being with a man their own age in their 20s. But often, these women willfully overlook the very type of man they now claim to want in their 30s when both them and the men they now cannot get were in their 20s. Does this woman understand that commitment minded men in their 20s might find it unfair to have to wait until he is in his 30s to have women his own age finally "be ready to settle down" and even consider a man such as himself? Why should have to sit on the sidelines to for a woman to waste a decade before she signals any interest for him? Is it really shocking that many of these men say "no thanks" to such a deal and instead opt for a younger woman who can give him a much better deal?
And real rich to try and use the shaming language of calling men "Peter Pans" for making the rational choice of a younger woman who has more to offer him and less baggage.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
The amount of times I have heard the 'focusing on my career' as an excuse as to why women are single at 33. It does not pass the sniff test.
In fact, if she really were focused on her career in her 20s, the best thing to do would have been to settled down and get married. Being married doesn't take up any of your work time at all, it actually saves time being married in your 20s. Because you don't need to be 'travelling' and 'finding yourself'. It takes up a huge amount of time and energy to ride the CC.
When a woman says that she is single in her mid 30s because she was 'focusing on her career' in her 20s, this is code for 'focusing on getting as much cock as I could'.
A certain part of me understand them - if I could have got laid as easily as women can get laid in my 20s, my body count would probably be in over 1,000. We all want more of what we want. What I can't understand is that they don't seem to have any concept of 'opportunity cost'.
orbilius 11mo ago Stickied
Yeah but the thing you could do easily is indulge in porn and video games.
And note that society is all over men telling us (the truth) that such indulgences waste our limited and precious time. Society is willing to tell men some truths ...and it's good for us. Hearing the truth is always good.
But nobody tells women that "finding themselves" (or any of the other euphemisms they have for wasting their youth) is maybe a bad idea.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
I agree with @polishknight - your comment deserves stickying.
Put another way, if society is ok with telling men that they need to 'man up' (quit porn and video games) then why shouldn't we tell women to 'woman up'? (settle down and have children in their child bearing prime).
If we are ok with the concept of 'toxic masculinity' why can't we discuss toxic femininity?
Because it is precisely toxic femininity that perpetuates the double standard of holding men accountable but not women.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
This deserves stickying. It's always neat when an analogy/comparison can be found to illustrate a concept and make it hit home. Trying to explain to women why CC riding in their 20's is wrong is difficult because they're just having fun. When men have fun, or, well, do ANYTHING we are subjected to maximum criticism. To compare something to what men are criticized for illustrates the double standard that women are entitled children to do as they please without any negative consequences.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 11mo ago
It’s good to come up with comparable examples like that because straightforward apples-to-apples comparisons don’t take into account that men’s and women’s situations are different.
That’s why I coined the word, “inspin” as the female counterpart to “incel.” A man who can’t get sex is not comparable to a woman who can’t get sex (no such woman exists), but rather to a woman who can’t get commitment.
Gynocentrists typically switch between apples-to-apples comparisons and apples-to-oranges comparisons depending on which one benefits women. The way society admires men who can have sex with a lot of women and disdains women who have sex with a lot of men is an apples-to-oranges comparison because it’s much easier for average women to get sex than it is for average men. Gynocentrists hate that, and demand apples-to-apples comparisons whereby sluts are envied and admired the way “ladies men” are.
But those same people will demand apples-to-oranges comparisons when equality would inconvenience women. Take the draft, for example. Basic fairness dictates that people who get to exercise political power by voting should be subject to conscription. But when we say that it’s time for women to start carrying their share of the load, they trot out a million reasons why equality isn’t equal.
All of those reasons ultimately lead back to the fact that women have uteruses. But if they reject the apples-to-apples approach (send women to fight like we send men), the apples-to-oranges counterpart demands a duty of similar scope based on the fact that women have uteruses.
If women get to vote but may not be forced to fight, a comparable obligation to dying in a war would be an obligation to bear the children of the men being sent to fight. The fact that such an equivalent obligation is utterly unthinkable shows just how privileged women are.
The general rule is apples-to apples for rights and benefits, and apple-to-oranges for responsibilities and burdens. Such is the way of feminism from the beginning.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
It amuses me to think of what the voting demographics and outcomes would be like if enfranchisement required you to be either a soldier/veteran or parent, and you had to not be using welfare assistance.
Basically net contributors to society only and everyone else can fuck off until they fix their shit or otherwise get enough skin in the game to deserve a vote.
orbilius 10mo ago
Outcomes would surely be substantially better.
What you're describing is very similar to the way Sparta worked. The only way to get a marked grave (a symbol of approval by society) was to either (a) die in battle or (b) die in childbirth.
Also, there was no welfare. If you weren't useful to society, they tossed you from a cliff - they literally took newborns and examined them and if they didn't think they'd grow up to be useful, they yeeted them off a cliff.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
Women are just horrible at long-term planning, goals, investment, providing for the future. I don't think they even know what they want now, much less in ten years. This is why they need men - not only to tell them what to do, but also teach them what they want. I'm serious. Women are that malleable, it's a gift in the right circumstances, but usually their downfall.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
I don't disagree with you. I'm not sure how that would work.
It feels to me that the thing that is missing is some sort of 'women's education'. The issue with the issue that we now face is that is a life cycle problem - you cannot learn from your mistakes if the mistake takes place over such a long cycle, ie. your entire life. Women who eventually learn (at about age 50) that spending 20 years on the CC (from age 16 to 36) is not a good life time plan, learn their lesson far too late. Which is why our birth rates (in the 1st world) are dropping and we are seeing a generation of inspins (for women at over 40ish) and incels (for men aged 17 to 37).
The long life cycle problem is exactly why things like Life Insurance is so well regulated. Consumers cannot 'learn by product failure' which life insurance companies perform best. There are plenty of short life cycle products, like chewing gum, that don't need much regulation, because the cost of failure for the consumer is so low. You buy a pack of gum, you don't like it, no big deal, you never buy it again.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
In terms of lifetime issues, it takes an objective study of history (good and bad examples), some type of strong religious adherence/education, a strong sisterhood, and patriarchs with expectations. Maybe all of those. Which is sad, all of these things have been purposely destroyed/subverted.
I know, it's the "takes a village" thing, and I hate that, but with women they just generally don't deviate from what is expected of them. This is usually bad, but I've actually seen it work in a very positive way.
My daughter has never questioned my authority, even as a teenager she would not think of disobeying me, at least not that I've ever seen. Why? Because her mother sets a good example. Daughters try to get away with exactly what their mothers do. This makes running the family very easy. All I do is make sure all of their friends and influences are either me, or someone I want them to be like. Yes, I'm protective and controlling, but that's what is needed these days.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 10mo ago
agree with 90% of what you say, except for the religious thing.
wswZtyqNGQ 11mo ago
Fools learn from their own mistakes. The wise learn from the mistakes of others. And all women are fools, so they can't learn until it's too late.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
the issue is that women aren't even fools, because fools actually learn from their mistakes.
What I am seeing with women is an absolute stubbornness to NOT learn. They will carry on doing the same shit for 30 years (from 17 to 37 and beyond) and still refuse to 'settle'. I've heard of women in their 50s who are still refusing to put down the copium pipe.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 11mo ago
Because they are still in the First World so the worst consequences of their mistakes are still mitigated for even the ugliest, oldest, and incompetent women.
They are not subject to any real selection pressure. Welfare is dysgenic.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
"I just don't think its fair that she compromise on dating guys her own age, if that's what she truly wants."
That right there might be the most woman thing I have ever heard. It's absolute 24 carat gold. It perfectly encapsulates the combination of hypocrisy, insanity, delusion and entitlement of toxic femininity.
This is what makes men and women different. If a man said that "I don't see why I should compromise on getting XYZ, because that is what I truly want" then his peers would tell him that he has gone over the edge and into madness. Women just tell each other 'you go girl!'.
Women live in a dream world where the very fact of 'truly wanting' something entitles you to it.
woodsmoke Respectful reprobate 10mo ago
I don't remember where or from whom I first heard this, but I find it's best summed up thusly:
Women live in the world of the possible because they can. Men live in the world of the probable because they must.
Justanaverageguy 11mo ago
I bet she’s one of those women who run around screaming about men “treat women better!”. Meanwhile she’s treated men like total ass all her life when she was attractive and young and now the tables have turned. Now it’s her turn to get treated like ass.
[deleted]
woodsmoke Respectful reprobate 10mo ago
Removed for rule 4. We've moved our "official" operation over to .red but, as long as we retain a presence on reddit, we need to make sure we don't give them (more of) a reason to nuke our sub there.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 11mo ago
"I just don't think it's fair"
The first step down the path to being a bitter, old Karen. Hating men for not adoring them, hating other women out of soul-consuming jealousy.